"Rush to the Door"

"Rush to the Door"

Bob
Bob

June 27th, 2011, 4:48 pm #1

This is exactly what I was saying below -- there already is a rush for people in pension systems to retire earlier than they planned. They don't want to wait until changes to pension rules take effect and limit when and how much they can benefit from retirement. Co-workers have been saying this to me for a couple of years now, and the talk is becoming more frequent and feeling more urgent.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohi ... 94200.html


Now, tell me . . is there REALLY no danger to the American economy and our national debt from having so many people fleeing into retirement? If, as Nat suggested, MORE people should retire at earlier ages, to open up jobs for younger workers . . . I say, be careful what you ask for!
Quote
Share

Thumper
Thumper

June 27th, 2011, 6:58 pm #2

That's what they have been saying for the past dozen years, and really don't know if it is happening. I retired at an early age because I could, and retirement is "good" for me, but don't know what will happen in the future.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 27th, 2011, 8:27 pm #3

This is exactly what I was saying below -- there already is a rush for people in pension systems to retire earlier than they planned. They don't want to wait until changes to pension rules take effect and limit when and how much they can benefit from retirement. Co-workers have been saying this to me for a couple of years now, and the talk is becoming more frequent and feeling more urgent.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohi ... 94200.html


Now, tell me . . is there REALLY no danger to the American economy and our national debt from having so many people fleeing into retirement? If, as Nat suggested, MORE people should retire at earlier ages, to open up jobs for younger workers . . . I say, be careful what you ask for!
As far as I know the proposed changes don't effect those who are older than 55 and I think most people agree it would be unfair to change the rules for anyone nearing retirement- and unnecessary because as I said- there is no "emergency"- Social Security has sufficient funds still for many years. The changes are for the future.

But it remains a fact that new jobs are not being and will not be created as fast as are people who are needing them. So what is the solution? The only thing I can think of is reducing the normal work week so that more people will be necessary to do the work. Of course this will mean less pay- and a lower standard of living that people will just have to accept. All ready this is happening as people are settling for smaller cars and smaller houses and downsizing will be the way of the future.
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

June 28th, 2011, 1:11 am #4

That's what they have been saying for the past dozen years, and really don't know if it is happening. I retired at an early age because I could, and retirement is "good" for me, but don't know what will happen in the future.
Given that some pension rules allow for full retirement after 30 years and age 55 . . and since the start of the huge Baby Boomer generation began around 1946 . . it could be that the Boomers did start retiring around 10 years ago. But that was the start . . . we are about in the middle of the Boomer span (I'm told it ended around 1964) of retirement, with more yet to come. Yes, I would agree that we are now starting to hit the point where the retired Boomers begin to outnumber those still working.
Quote
Share

Bob
Bob

June 28th, 2011, 1:20 am #5

As far as I know the proposed changes don't effect those who are older than 55 and I think most people agree it would be unfair to change the rules for anyone nearing retirement- and unnecessary because as I said- there is no "emergency"- Social Security has sufficient funds still for many years. The changes are for the future.

But it remains a fact that new jobs are not being and will not be created as fast as are people who are needing them. So what is the solution? The only thing I can think of is reducing the normal work week so that more people will be necessary to do the work. Of course this will mean less pay- and a lower standard of living that people will just have to accept. All ready this is happening as people are settling for smaller cars and smaller houses and downsizing will be the way of the future.
and rationing . . including health care. With a large and growing aged population, Americans will need to pay more and accept less. Medical care, for example. Procedures that we have taken for granted won't be widely available in the future . . except for those who can afford them out-of-pocket. I recently had a CT scan of my neck due to pain in that area (pain in the neck . . and I'm not even married!). I have good insurance coverage, but the insurance paid $30 and I paid $503 (but, without insurance and the negotiated adjustment, it would have cost me $1,300!). I think we will see more of that in the future. I think the pols will start emphasizing "quality of life" and ask, "When is life not worth living . . saving?" But the real reason they will ask is cost.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 28th, 2011, 1:40 am #6

Well here is one area where there does not have to be a shortage. The shortage in healthcare is a contrived one! There is a waiting list to get into medical schools but schools deliberately limit the number of doctors by high costs and quotas. Meanwhile there are many people who would make fine doctors if they could only get the training.

I say the government should provide a free medical education to anyone who is qualified- just like the army trained my dad to be a X-ray technician. In exchange for this, they agree to certain rules about how much they charge and who they treat. This would be the best money the government ever spent but it will never happen because too many vested interests want the highly profitable status-quo to continue.
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

June 29th, 2011, 12:45 am #7

Nat,
Do you really think health care costs would decline merely by educating more doctors? What about the high costs of research, technology and new drugs? Americans insist upon the latest and the best (whether they can pay for it or not -- it's seen now as a birthright), and that high demand results in high prices (the way I see it). With an aging US population -- primary consumers of all types of health services -- I don't see anything but an increase in demand that is driving the prices higher and higher.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 29th, 2011, 3:52 am #8

As I understand it, there is a shortage of doctors- especially general practitioners. Around here you call for a appointment and may have to wait days. The waiting rooms are always full. Some doctors aren't taking new patients at all. While hi-tech machinery can be expensive, most medical problems only require the basic low-tech stuff, and mainly enough doctors that they aren't rushed and have sufficient time to treat their patients.

But as for hi-tech equipment-

we have spent over a TRILLION DOLLARS in Iraq and Afghanistan so far: http://costofwar.com/en

You can buy a lot of hi-tech medical equipment for a trillion dollars.
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

June 29th, 2011, 5:29 pm #9

Maybe it is like Blue posted -- his experiences and mine aren't similar. You live in Florida, where there are (I'm told) a lot of older retirees. Where I live, people tend to move south when they get older and can retire. They want to escape the snow and cold. They come to places like yours. So, it could be that there is crowding and waits much more in doctors' offices where you live, and not much where I live. The only crowds I see are when I take my mother to her cardiologist -- big practice located right next door to a hospital, and always a lot of patients and waiting. But, for primary physicians, I often hear that they are accepting new patients. My own doctor, middle-aqged and very thorough, rarely has other patients in his waiting room. I come in and get right in. Just different conditions and experiences, I suppose.

"You can buy a lot of hi-tech medical equipment for a trillion dollars."

This is true. But the fact is that we ARE in these countries and spending that money, today as much as 3 or 5 years ago, and we are also spending money on medical care . . and will do so more and more in the future with an aging population. Again, let's stop playing the blame-game and face facts.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 29th, 2011, 7:43 pm #10

Well yes, we do live in different worlds. I live in a fast-growing area where the growth of doctors has not kept pace with the growth of patients while patients are leaving your area. And its probably also that many of the patients here are on Medicare which does not pay as much so doctors are more reluctance to come here. In fact, many of the doctors that are here are foreign born and educated.

As for the wars, yes, I know that $-TRILLION PLUS is gone forever and can't be used on medical care- or anything else now. I'm just hopeful that future presidents will not be so foolish as to start unnecessary wars. Even the Afghanistan war which was started in response to "9-11" was unnecessary. It was started because we thought the Taliban were hiding Bin Laden and wouldn't turn him over for justice- but as it turn out- it wasn't the war that got Bin Laden- it was old fashion CIA espionage that tracked him down- and this could have been done with no war at all. In fact, Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan!

But I sense that a lot of people- even Republicans who are generally "pro-war" are now recognizing that the US can no longer police the world and engage in futile "nation building". Hell, we have our own nation that needs "rebuilding" with all those dollars.

Quote
Like
Share